Re: Megill (was: A Preface to Transgression)

On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, malgosia askanas wrote in part:

> I think the general category of "trangression"
> is so sweeping and crude as to be useless; one has to evaluate each
> of these actions separately, on its own terms, in its own context.
> But as for the Transgression essay, I have not yet digested it enough
> to judge how much it illuminates and how much it obscures.
>
> -m
>

For instance, dumping tons of tea into the Boston Harbor on December 16,
1773 was transgressive in a way I, personally, would want to endorse,
given the context in which it occurred. This act was no joke and was
greeted with horror and derision when it was reported back to Britain (a
couple of months later, of course). But in another context this would be
simple vandalism, simple "thrill-seeking." [I am replying in part here to
Doug Henwood's post of March 5, where he writes in part: "Can you have a
standard for judging transgressions, in which case they become
revolutionary acts (to use an old, unfashionable political vocabulary), or
is it just the violation that's a thrill?"]

--jsr



Replies
Re: Megill (was: A Preface to Transgression), malgosia askanas
Partial thread listing: